Why is it some people are naturally talented at drawing?

Become a member of the CGSociety

Connect, Share, and Learn with our Large Growing CG Art Community. It's Free!

THREAD CLOSED
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 04 April 2005   #46
Talent. What's talent? When a person excels in something for some inexplicable reason and appears to be 'naturally' good at it?

I think it's such a huge combination of everything everyone's already listed. Maybe people have a latent aptitude for, drawing, in this case, that's already there, but without motivation or enjoyment the 'talent' might never be developed. Anyway. I don't think 'talent' per se in that way that I see it perceived by many people is so important. You have to work to the level of skill you want to get to, and to get to that level you should enjoy doing so. That's my opinion, put simply.

As for myself, some people say that I'm skilled with a pencil and the level of 'accuracy' I've reached in rendering realism is talent. I don't know. I don't think so. All I know is that I draw excessively, and look at art almost obsessively, and from those things combined as well as others, I must have learned something along the way.

Bah. Now that I've thought about this some more, I really don't know. I'm not sure about 'talent' at all.
 
Old 04 April 2005   #47
To try to find some answers I did a google on "talent genes art", here some highlights.
interesting read about lots of things, including heredity
http://www.isteve.com/2002_QA_Steven_Pinker.htm

Quote: UPI: A widespread criticism among hostile reviewers has been: "You say that genes affect how people behave. Doesn't everybody know this already? Why write a book about it?"
Pinker: In their hearts, most people know it, especially people with more than one child. But many people deny it when they switch into intellectualizing mode. For example, many parenting studies measure a correlation between parenting practices and children's outcomes and conclude that parenting made the difference -- jabbering at your kids advances their language skills, spanking them makes them more violent and so forth. They ignore the fact that parents provide their children with genes, not just an environment, so talkative parents may pass on genes for talkativeness to their children.



another, more about creativity:
http://www.uchsc.edu/news/bridge/20...04/art_med.html

A quote I found on dyslexia:
Quote: It is widely held opinion that dyslexia is associated with remarkably artistic creativity. Speculations on different brain structures and brain functions have been proposed as an explanation. Two studies are reported on the prevalence of dyslexia among university students—one group of art students and one group of students from non-art disciplines. The admission to the art schools were extremely demanding, possibly implying that the students were genuinely talented, and that their choice of training did not reflect a compensation for failure in conventional academic fields. Art academy students reported significantly more signs of dyslexia than non-art university students. Objective testing showed that art students had significantly poorer phonological skills than non-art students. Thus, according to self-reports combined with objective testing, the incidence of dyslexia was far higher among art students.
 
Old 04 April 2005   #48
It's an interesting and long-standing debate, isn't it. I used to be all in favour of 'environmental influences are the only things that matter in shaping your personality', but especially after reading two books on geneticism and natural selection by Richard Dawkins ('The Selfish Gene' and 'The Extended Phenotype') I've moved towards the train of thought that genetic heritage plays a much bigger part in who we are than most people think.
If you're into darwinism and that whole caboodle, I can only recommend his books. ('The Selfish Gene' basically explain (his theory of) how life came to be)

Anyways. From my own point of view, I was good at drawing when I was a kid (well "good" as in "I didn't draw eyes that looked like almonds") but kinda went away from it a while because my parents didn't actively encourage it. So now I'm missing some of those things people say you pick up so easily when you're a kid. I'll try to be more attentive towards those things with my kids
__________________


 
Old 04 April 2005   #49
macievieli are you talking about reincarnation?
__________________
HTTP://WWW.PCGSTUDIOS.NET

WEB DEVELOPMENT, GRAPHICS DESIGN, 3D DEVELOPMENT
 
Old 04 April 2005   #50
I believe in the talent (genetic\innate hability) and practice (aquired skill) theory.
I think everyone is born with a greater predisposition towards a specific area, in greater or lesser degrees (hence the more average talent and the genius), and that this can be further developed by practice.

In my experience, practice alone won't solve everything. I've known people who worked real hard at drawing for years and, apparently, will never be that good at it.
In my case, I always liked sciences and even maths, but could never do a thing with them. My brain just seems unable to function in terms of numbers and logic - when I started school, I always carried a bag of beans with me because adding a group of 5 things with a group of 3 got me confused!
OK, practice (and a larger brain, most likely!) got me over that problem but I could never get past equations systems and I'm a lousy programmer.
Is it that I'm just dumb?
Because, when it comes to arts I often seem to know what to do even before I get to learn anything. Sometimes, it's like I just look at things and, BAM!, I know how it works - everything just falls into place.
Of course, since I hardly ever draw, I'm not that good at it, either. Yet I'm still ahead of those people I mentioned.
I've also known people that by practice alone became technically far better than me, but their work, compared to others that practiced and were "born with it" tends to look pretty dull. It happens a lot with photographers and 3Ders - people that learn all there is to know about their areas (rules, laws, technical stuff) but never manage to do an interesting work of art.

I guess one never really gets there while lacking one of the 2 things, like someone here said.
__________________
Join the Daily Sketch Forum
 
Old 04 April 2005   #51
Quote: It is widely held opinion that dyslexia is associated with remarkably artistic creativity. Speculations on different brain structures and brain functions have been proposed as an explanation. Two studies are reported on the prevalence of dyslexia among university students—one group of art students and one group of students from non-art disciplines. The admission to the art schools were extremely demanding, possibly implying that the students were genuinely talented, and that their choice of training did not reflect a compensation for failure in conventional academic fields. Art academy students reported significantly more signs of dyslexia than non-art university students. Objective testing showed that art students had significantly poorer phonological skills than non-art students. Thus, according to self-reports combined with objective testing, the incidence of dyslexia was far higher among art students.

That maks me an artist for sure. I have dislexia and you dont want to see my quigli wigli writing...
__________________
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Chasing Flow - Get it now!
 
Old 04 April 2005   #52
Hey... I thought you guys might like these. Jeff Scott Campbell (of Gen13 and Danger Girl fame, currently working on a new title called Wildsiderz) did these in HIGH SCHOOL. He was a few years younger then me but his sister and my sister were good friends there (Gateway in Aurora Colorado). These were run as yearbook foldouts... Note the improvements from year to year! Sophomore,


Junior,
__________________
CONCEPT SHIPS

Last edited by igorstshirts : 04 April 2005 at 06:11 AM.
 
Old 04 April 2005   #53
Senior! What did the art in you guys' yearbooks look like? This guy's friggin' talented!
http://www.jscottcampbell.com
__________________
CONCEPT SHIPS

Last edited by igorstshirts : 04 April 2005 at 06:12 AM.
 
Old 04 April 2005   #54
only 15 years old


http://www.kmd.ukme.com/
__________________
Is It Maya?? No!
Is it Lightwave??No!
HEY LOOK!
Its

SUPERMAX!!!
 
Old 04 April 2005   #55
In my opinion, it's all a matter of speed. If you're not naturally gifted, you can still ultimately become a great artist, but it will take you longer than someone with talent who picks it up right away.

Most of us are a mixture of both. Practice makes perfect.
__________________
www.willanimateforfood.net
 
Old 04 April 2005   #56
i still disagree with most peoples views in this thread and say it's all about what you learn, and what you put in. no-one comes into the world able to draw well, but anyone can learn. saying that it's about some innate and mysterious "talent" is a poor excuse for failings, and a poor way to underplay others hard work. "oh so theyr'e 'just' talented are they, well that's ok then."
__________________
The Third Party | Homepage | My Reel
"You need to know what you're doing before you start, and to start because you need what you're doing."
 
Old 04 April 2005   #57
already existing skills at birth, reincarnation and time

if you thought the reincarnation post was far out dont read this, its my own distorted personal view

I am sure "someone"actually a lot of people come into this world with an abundance of inexplicable talent, its been seen so many times through history. in music in visual art in science. I am sure genetics have something to do with it, if your vision and hand eye coordination doesnt work, chances are that you will never draw a lot (or you might become an expressionist). however I am also sure certain people carry and recieve a lot of information with their "bio energy matrices" (souls, whatever we call it), now that we are talking reincarnation. Is time really linear and progresses from now to now? Ofcourse thats the way we understand and experience time in our confined three dimensional domain, but does it make any sense in a broader perspective? its been named the 4th dimension and its annoying to try to wrap your mind around, just like its annoying to fit a house in a 2D plane and have people living there (read flatlands). in dreams the flexibilty of time is a lot clearer perhaps because we transgress the barrier of the three dimensions and gain more acces to roam the 4th. Personally its a great place to investigate the mysteries of life. so in my mind, the whole concept of reincarnation is set on a false premise. namely the universe unfolding chronologically..tik tok tik tok. I dont think its as simple as that, ofcourse we have to stick to this concept when working with regular science, we need time as a reference for everything, but when we talk reincarnation we have already left many conventions. Lets say someone lived 200 lives. Now remove our understanding of time. Does everything happen at once? Time is more to be understood as a medium we travel through. speed affects time, we know... how about the higher dimensions and they way information travels from one dimension to another? (interesting in the context of people having skills they are not "supposed" to have early on). A very common experience of this almost everyone has is the telephone situation. People who dont often call each other, suddenly call each other at the same instant in time. I have experienced it a lot here with my flat mate, we both go to the hallway at the same time because, in the middle of the night working for instance, we both thought we heard the other one call our name, but we didnt speak at all. And so on.. quantum mechanics descibes some of these issues, photons existing several places at once and so on. Its not that far fetched, its the those principles scientists are trying to construct the quantum computer from. Oh I cant wait for FermiLAB or CERN to prove those extra dimensions, however many they will nail.

ok I am almost certifiably nuts...
 
Old 04 April 2005   #58
Quote: it's all about what you learn, and what you put in. no-one comes into the world able to draw well,


Okay. But how do you then explain 'idiot-savants', people with autism or other related problems who have extreme talents in one single narrow area (but way below average in most everything else)? Talents that are obvious from a very early age? Some of them are musical geniuses who can 'record' songs in their heads from 1 listening (like Mozart was said to be able to do at 6 or so), and have perfect pitch without even practising. They just pick up an instrument and play the song.
Others are mathematical geniuses, others are able to look at a whole city block for a few seconds then draw it very faithfully without looking at it again. I saw a young boy do that very thing, on TV; every single window was there. Slightly distorted, because he didn't use a ruler or pencil or eraser, he just drew it in ink... I know for sure most pros can't do that. If any. Are you saying he just practised more than them?

Isn't it more likely that we have brains that are indeed wired slightly differently (or very differently)? How would evolution even work if all our brains are exactly the same from birth?
Your biggest argument so far against it having anything to do with genes, seems to be that this is somehow insulting to artists? But what does nature care if it insults us or not... probably better to look at the facts rather than what we wish to be true.
 
Old 04 April 2005   #59
yes, it is important to look at the facts rather than what we wish to be true. and the facts are people make excuses for their own failings while downplaying other peoples effort by ascribing their success to some mythical "natural talent", rather than to them not pushing themselves enough, being lazy or simply not having got that far yet and those talented artists having worked bloody hard to get to where they are, to get to the point where it seems so easy when they do it.

that child you saw drawing, could they draw, or did they just have a photographic memory, and in that case was it for them just a tracing? how different was it to a childs tracing over of a photograph?

how many of your favourite artists, or artists that you view as "talented" are/were idiot savants, had photographic memories, or were even childhood prodigies?

do you think you're mentally less capable than those around you, or do you think those aroung you are less capable than yourself? how do you know you're right and not just too humble/arrogant? have you ever pushed yourself, have those around you when you're around?

then how are you going to deal with it? are you a winner, innovator, ritualist, retreater or rebel at the fruit machine of life?
__________________
The Third Party | Homepage | My Reel
"You need to know what you're doing before you start, and to start because you need what you're doing."

Last edited by mdme_sadie : 04 April 2005 at 04:19 AM.
 
Old 04 April 2005   #60
People can only draw what they see. The visual motivation for a drawing can be prompted by ones take on a physical manifestation of what they “see” with naked eye or what we “see” within a mental vision. A logical type of person may see things as they are with no thought of deviating from the physical visuals that are presented to them. They may have a photographic impression of visual data only. An artistic person can see the same visual data but may put themselves in the picture and fantasize to the point of inserting another person, an object, etc into the makeup of this visual data. Since the visual information is not available until it is drawn or built the artist feels moved to “express” this vision with some technical manner of creation. Yes some people are naturally artistically creative or “expressive” and possess this ability in one area and others with the same circumstances may not.

When this artistic person presents their visual expressions this can come naturally without any prior training. In children this expression is raw and often chaotic. As we grow older we try to communicate our ideas to others in ways that others can understand or appreciate. So we learn expression techniques that work and apply these to better formulate our expressions so that others will accept our visions. Throughout human history people have been using art to express themselves. The ones that do it better are the artist who have discovered what expressions work for whatever reason with their audience.

Artistic skill not talent determines how good one can operate as a creative person to draw a straight line when they intend to draw a straight line. With skillful precision and execution of ones craft an artist can control their presentation of creativity. This too can come naturally. But artistic technical skill alone is not enough to capture and attention of an audience.

Art schools can tech persons to become skillful as technical artist. They can even teach persons to become skillful reproductive art technicians. But it's hard to teach people to be creative. Creativity is a natural process that is born from the desire to make something new or different.

Artistic persons see things creativity and can apply their own perspectives or shapes to what they see. They can alter what they see in many ways both in a logical manner and in a creative way. A creative person can transform a field of wheat into the hairs on a hedgehogs back and capture the same logical perspective and flow from one subject to the other. There is no explanation as to the reason of transferals of visions in this manner for most creative people. They simple react to whatever the moment is and create.

What can make some creative people more successful as far as getting other people to enjoy their presentations of creative visions can be based purely on a shared acceptance of subject matter. If ones art can reach others at some level of a mutual appreciation that connects an artist with their audience then the art works.

Talent defines a special ability. Our level of imagination determines our ability for creativity. Do we judge a persons artistic talent on their ability to create scientifically accurate reproductions of what we see with the naked eye? Or do we judge artistic talent based on an artists ability to create what is not available to the naked eye and thus is only revealed to us from within their imagination?

We have cameras that can duplicate any image we see as we see it. But many more artistic visions that are inspired by pure imagination have yet to be seen by any of our eyes until an artist presents these visions to us.

We can see ones ability to present their artistic vision based on the level quality of details that we see in the finished work. Anyone can identify sloppy artwork with badly connected topics. We can also see an artist ability to use their work to draw us out and touch us personally with a piece in some emotional way.

Art can be judged based on it's level of originality and creativity.

It's better to connect “artistic” talent with creative ability not artistic technical skills. If an artist is just copying what they see without bringing out their own creative vision on a subject matter then they lack “creative” talent. Without creative talent one is not a good artist they are only a copycat. A person can learn artististic skills as they need them.

Everyone can learn to draw technically accurate images. Only people with highly active imaginations can use technical drawing processes to express these as unique creative visions.

This is why we give credit to original creators of a type of artwork.
__________________
Modeling 3d objects on a 3d Beryl desktop. It's the 21st century, forreal.

Last edited by JA-forreal : 04 April 2005 at 07:24 AM.
 
Thread Closed share thread



Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
CGSociety
Society of Digital Artists
www.cgsociety.org

Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2006,
Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Minimize Ads
Forum Jump
Miscellaneous

All times are GMT. The time now is 12:44 PM.


Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.